That's just called cross examination, nothing you've said has been correct so far from a legal standpoint so it's hard to take anything you say seriously when you're unable to form an argument that isn't a misrepresentation of the facts or a misused legal term. I have no crimson covered glasses here, if Davis were the leading scorer and Miller was a nobody bench player I'd be defending him here still because people don't deserve to go to jail for a murder they weren't a party to.
I've sold a gun or two in my time so far. What if someone murdered someone about two days after I sold them a gun or hell, 10 minutes later?
Does that make me a murderer? I've given someone a knife at a table they asked for or in a deer blind or in a corn field/bonfire. If they went and stabbed some dude who'd been fighting with him, does that make me a murderer as well? You're in a very slippery slope, legally, if you ruled that people who sell/loan/distribute items that are used in murders or for other crimes are then also held accountable for the crimes that were committed.
If that law did come to pass or that precedence was set by a case like this, it would shake the legal foundations of the justice system to it's core and not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of people would then be accessories to possible crimes. They won't rule that way, going 3 or 4 down the line is impossible unless there is clear evidence of conspiring to commit the crime with the perpetrator.
Imagine a bartender being sentenced to 5 years in prison because he/she served alcohol to another person and that person went and killed someone in a DUI head on collision. Did the bartender know that alcohol could cause someone to get drunk? Yes, did they force that person to drive under the influence and kill someone? No. It's pretty cut and dry here.
The law is not grey. It is BLACK and WHITE you don't get to interpret it as you see fit you have to read it as it is written or else it circumvents the entire Justice system.
Also, I'm not a Dickhead, I've been on these boards for quite some time and I rarely get in an altercation. I do have differing view points than others but just because I do, doesn't mean I fight them. I do however, stand for the facts. If they provide a clear and concise argument that is hard to dispute, I'd be willing to concede my logic might be flawed. I suggest you consider doing something like that here because it only looks worse for you the further you dig yourself into that foxhole and try to fight everyone around you. Playing devil's advocate can be fun, but knowing when to shut up is likely more important.